Looking for a OEM tripod foot for my EF 400mm f2.8L IS USM

I don’t want a bastardized lens!

Will T wrote:

I don’t want a bastardized lens!

Well, it seems that you likely have 2 choices:

1. Live with it. It looks like the cover is a simple friction fit and another could go the way of the original. Think of it as "now my lens won't lose any more parts."

2. Make the lens more functional with a good 3rd party replacement foot like this:

https://kirkphoto.com/lens-mounting/canon/rf-400mm-f-2-8l-is-usm/replacement-lens-foot-for-canon-is-iii-telephoto-lenses.html

and save your original foot so you can admire Canon's OEM expertise. In my experience, replacing the foot with one that incorporates an Arca mount is much more useful than adding an Arca plate to the OEM foot. It's more comfortable and secure to carry and has a lower center-of-gravity (is more compact).

Like Chesapeake, I've replaced all of my big white feet with ones like the above. All of them give me a more secure mount than I had when adding an Arca plate to the OEM foot.

But, heck; if you prefer looks over functionality, it's your lens after all...

Abbott Schindler wrote:

Will T wrote:

I don’t want a bastardized lens!

Well, it seems that you likely have 2 choices:

1. Live with it. It looks like the cover is a simple friction fit and another could go the way of the original. Think of it as "now my lens won't lose any more parts."

2. Make the lens more functional with a good 3rd party replacement foot like this:

https://kirkphoto.com/lens-mounting/canon/rf-400mm-f-2-8l-is-usm/replacement-lens-foot-for-canon-is-iii-telephoto-lenses.html

and save your original foot so you can admire Canon's OEM expertise. In my experience, replacing the foot with one that incorporates an Arca mount is much more useful than adding an Arca plate to the OEM foot. It's more comfortable and secure to carry and has a lower center-of-gravity (is more compact).

Like Chesapeake, I've replaced all of my big white feet with ones like the above. All of them give me a more secure mount than I had when adding an Arca plate to the OEM foot.

But, heck; if you prefer looks over functionality, it's your lens after all...

It appears to be beyond your comprehension that someone would want something to be original!

Chesapeake Imagery wrote:

Well, actually yes. First I can't comprehend why Canon refuses to jump on the Arca Swiss bandwagon. It's nuts to require an aftermarket Arca Swiss plate to be screwed onto the generic Canon plate when Canon could very easily make the foot Arca Swiss compatible in the first place. Call it "Canon Dove Tail" or something if they don't want to use "Arca Swiss."

This part I think I do understand. While most people use Arca compatible gear, some don’t. For example, Manfrotto (for reasons I can’t fathom) has not one, but TWO unique camera mounts, neither of which I find nearly as secure as Arca-compatibles. There may be other manufacturers with their own proprietary mounts as well. Of course this begs the question: on big whites, which (at least with my 500 II) ship with 2 feet, why can’t Canon include an extra Arca-compatible foot?

Beyond that, unless you bought the lens as an investment or to be a museum piece, the only circumstance where it would not be better to add the replacement Arca Swiss foot is if you never ever use a tripod or monopod. To each his own, but you saying you "want something to be original" in this context makes as much sense, if you plan to actually use the lens, as if you said you don't use any camera settings other than full automatic because you want the camera to stay original.

I think I may have an answer to this. Perhaps the OP is either a collector or else is getting the lens ready for resale. Requiring this particular non critical piece be replaced with an OEM part rather than going for something that actually makes the lens more useful smacks of someone who’s not particularly concerned with functionality. Or maybe he’s just a collector who values appearance over functionality.

I have no idea what Canon charges for a replacement OEM foot, but it is probably outrageously expensive. If you are dead set against an aftermarket replacement foot, I would buy one anyway and offer to trade it to someone who still has the original.

From my experiences buying a Canon mount for thee 70-200 f/4L and looking into some of their other mounts for lenses that don’t come with them, I’d guess that an OEM replacement could well cost more than one of the dreaded, icky, undesirable aftermarket ones. I assume the OP already queried Canon about replacing the screw cover.

How many stupid off topic posts will it take a mod to delete this thread?

Yes I have.

The 400 mk1 is outside of support thus my request.

The interesting thing is the black rubber cover on the foot is also used on the EF 800mm f/5.6 and is still under support.

I got this from one of my contacts inside of Canon.

I received a new black cover from Canon yesterday but have not been to my office to open the box.

Now to purchase some contact cement to install it with.

It will fit, it is the same exact canon part number!

Will T wrote:

Yes I have.

The 400 mk1 is outside of support thus my request.

The interesting thing is the black rubber cover on the foot is also used on the EF 800mm f/5.6 and is still under support.

I got this from one of my contacts inside of Canon.

I received a new black cover from Canon yesterday but have not been to my office to open the box.

Now to purchase some contact cement to install it with.

Thank you for the suggestion, I was lucky enough to order just the missing black rubber part new from canon once I determined it was available since it is used on the 800mm f/5.6 that is still under support.

I just installed it today, a little contact cement and it’s like new!

Now to replace the cracked focus distance window!